No. CICO measures loss or gain of calories from the body. You've got the horse and the cart reversed.

Oh, the minute details again, LOL! Well, it also dictates it in the sense that if I say that I am doing a de facto 7000 calories deficit - then it follows that I must lose 7000 calories from my body and not 4000 - or as some misguided people think; that they even can gain real weight in a calorie deficit(i.e. accumulate fat, protein or glycogen in their bodies that makes more calories than before the diet!) which is absurd! And vice versa, being in a real de facto calorie surplus dictates that you must gain weight, i.e. accumulate more calories in your body...

But when you tell someone who's spent years trying unsuccessfully to lose weight by eating less and moving more that they're A. lying about their food intake and/or B. lazy, you do them a serious disservice.

Thankfully I'm neither in the diet consulting business, nor in the people judging business.

People generally are really bad at estimating what and how much they eat -- lots of studies about that.

Thankfully I'm neither in the diet consulting business, nor in the people judging business.

People generally are really bad at estimating what and how much they eat -- lots of studies about that.

People generally are lazy, too :-P

Peoples' laziness is not explanatory of the rise of obesity in the past several decades. People didn't get lazier, they got fatter (and that very well may have made them lazier). Peoples' inability to count calories isn't the cause of the obesity epidemic either. It's not like everybody was running around weighing 400 lbs until food labeling was required, then we all got skinny except for the few loonies who refused to add up their calorie totals.

Telling people they're eating too much and exercising too little when they've made serious efforts to lose weight by CW methods is judgmental.

That said, some people might just think it's cool to be a fat disgusting slob. But I don't think that explains the trend.

Hey CICO fans. There are reason why I and so many others are so passionate about the "Alternative Hypothesis."

It's not just the CICO people can NEVER EVER EVER EVER accurately reflect what the "Alternative Hypothesis" is. That is incredibly frustrating to me. Just once - for f*cking once - can a CICO person ACCURATELY and COMPLETELY summarize the Alternative Hypothesis without chiming in with their 2 cents about how it's wrong?

Imagine if Taubes or any other serious CICO critic began every discussion to the effect of "CICO is B.S. and anyone who believes it is an idiot." That wins no fans. Instead, GT and others BEGIN by ACCURATELY REFLECTING why we all believe in CICO. Without attacking it. Just reflecting it. To demonstrate to others that the idea has been properly understood. I challenege a CICO head out there to -- WITHOUT resorting to any kind of attack or editorializing, or mentioning the words "carbs" or "insulin" -- accurately characterize the lipophilia hypothesis.
Do it. I dare you. Not a single word of critique or editorializing or ad homineming. I freaking dare you.

Why am I and others so heated about this? I'll tell you why:

It's not just that CICO always boils down to "suck it up, fatty, and get control of yourself like I've managed to do" -- which is as repugnant as it is fallacious. It's not just that CICO is probably singlehandedly responsible for the obesity epidemic (and thereby for diabetes, cancer, heart disease, go down the list). It's not just that without the removal of CICO, we will NEVER -- and I mean NEVER -- fix the health-care decay that is crippling America and causing countless misery to millions, or convince more than an isolated few people to eat "real food" (whatever the hell that is, btw).

It's that CICO condemns millions of people to die and suffer for no reason -- for the love of a logical fallacy that's trivially refuted -- AND it prevents awareness that could solve many other obesity-related problems that likely have nothing to do with carbs or even insulin.

Hey CICO fans. There are reason why I and so many others are so passionate about the "Alternative Hypothesis."

It's not just the CICO people can NEVER EVER EVER EVER accurately reflect what the "Alternative Hypothesis" is. That is incredibly frustrating to me. Just once - for f*cking once - can a CICO person ACCURATELY and COMPLETELY summarize the Alternative Hypothesis without chiming in with their 2 cents about how it's wrong?

Imagine if Taubes or any other serious CICO critic began every discussion to the effect of "CICO is B.S. and anyone who believes it is an idiot." That wins no fans. Instead, GT and others BEGIN by ACCURATELY REFLECTING why we all believe in CICO. Without attacking it. Just reflecting it. To demonstrate to others that the idea has been properly understood. I challenege a CICO head out there to -- WITHOUT resorting to any kind of attack or editorializing, or mentioning the words "carbs" or "insulin" -- accurately characterize the lipophilia hypothesis.
Do it. I dare you. Not a single word of critique or editorializing or ad homineming. I freaking dare you.

Why am I and others so heated about this? I'll tell you why:

It's not just that CICO always boils down to "suck it up, fatty, and get control of yourself like I've managed to do" -- which is as repugnant as it is fallacious. It's not just that CICO is probably singlehandedly responsible for the obesity epidemic (and thereby for diabetes, cancer, heart disease, go down the list). It's not just that without the removal of CICO, we will NEVER -- and I mean NEVER -- fix the health-care decay that is crippling America and causing countless misery to millions, or convince more than an isolated few people to eat "real food" (whatever the hell that is, btw).

It's that CICO condemns millions of people to die and suffer for no reason -- for the love of a logical fallacy that's trivially refuted -- AND it prevents awareness that could solve many other obesity-related problems that likely have nothing to do with carbs or even insulin.

Really? Pointing out certain cause-effect relationships is now "judgmental" if someone made a half-assed effort and really wants his gold star for participation?

In this case, it turns out to be judgmental if you confuse which is the cause and which the effect.

Originally Posted by Lumifer

Y'know, you wanted to lose weight, you tried some stuff and it didn't work -- you failed. I'm not interested in assigning blame, but a simple acknowledgement of reality is kinda necessary.

Is it their fault that the "stuff" they were told to "try" may have actually made the problem worse rather than better? The CICO adherents are the ones who refuse to acknowledge reality. See AdamK's post above this one.